I see no recent posts here. Has anyone applied for a new permit in the past 2-3 months?
If yes, any news/info? I'm taking my application in next week.

So far the sheriff's office has been very co-operative. I called to request the app and had it in my mailbox in 2 days. A few days later I called them with a question and was surprised to learn there was a dedicated line for the CCW questions. Left a message and got call a call back from the public information desk officer in about 2 hours. The Deputy was very polite and informative.
So far so good. Taking the app in next week. Let's see how it goes...

I have received some PM's from a few that have been denied recently in both initial and appeal submittals, including myself.

From what I gather you best have something better than 'Self Defense' as a GC which Sheriff Dean has previously approved freely.

Ladies/Gents, a question.
As you may known, Ventura county CCW application "they" ask you to list the guns you intend to carry. Model, serial number and all...and there are only 3 guns per permit.
If the gun is registered to my wife, can I / should I put it on the app?
My wife is filing CCW app as well. Can we have same guns listed on both our applications?
Please advise. Ready to complete this last part and to take my application in as soon as I have this answer.
Thanx.

Last edited by PycckN-Comrade; 10-28-2011 at 1:02 AM..
Reason: Clarification

Ladies/Gents, a question.
As you may known, Ventura county CCW application "they" ask you to list the guns you intend to carry. Model, serial number and all...and there are only 3 guns per permit.
If the gun is registered to my wife, can I / should I put it on the app?
My wife is filing CCW app as well. Can we have same guns listed on both our applications?
Please advise. Ready to complete this last part and to take my application in as soon as I have this answer.
Thanx.

DOJ requires that firearms be associated/dis-associated to the license. Go ahead and list whatever firearms you might carry, and include whatever you need over the 3 spaces on a separate page.

__________________Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

So, to clarify the issue: the Ventura SO will not be checking to whom is the pistol registered, right? Or, at least they should not decline my application for that reason?

There's no statute requiring that a firearm be registered in order to be placed on a carry license. The licensing authorities exist to accept the application and feed the data into DOJ's AFS; the county is pre-empted from regulating who must register firearms, what firearms must be registered, and how. There's no rational basis for restricting the firearm to only one spouse, either, since the [mandatory] act of entering the firearm/license into AFS attaches the firearm to the licensee(s).

If you run into any problems on this issue, let me know.

-Brandon

__________________Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

How're we looking on this, Gents? Is it looking more like a 2012 thing before we inundate the system with LTC applications...or are they changing the game on us and making more difficult in Ventura County to obtain one now that the good cause data is out in the open?

__________________The Answer To 1984 Is 1776
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The free people of the world are at war with an insidious enemy:
a global banking oligarchy determined to shipwreck the economies of the world
and feast on its corpse.

I havent heard anything as of late. I assumed after the released good cause statements that an apply statement would be sent out. Still nothing. I assume there is more that we do not know about Ventura's process and CGF is still working at it.

__________________
"A superior Operator is best defined as someone who uses his superior judgement to keep himself out of situations that would require a display of his superior skills."

__________________The Answer To 1984 Is 1776
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The free people of the world are at war with an insidious enemy:
a global banking oligarchy determined to shipwreck the economies of the world
and feast on its corpse.

I have received some PM's from a few that have been denied recently in both initial and appeal submittals, including myself.

From what I gather you best have something better than 'Self Defense' as a GC which Sheriff Dean has previously approved freely.

Personally, I'm very dissapointed in the Sheriff.

Just my 2-cents.

-178S

Please keep this in mind....

Quote:

Dean bases his decisions partly on a 1977 state attorney general's opinion that to obtain a permit, the applicant must have a need for self-defense that exceeds that of the average citizen, Aranda said. Applicants also must live in the county and have no felony convictions or history of violence or mental health problems, he said.

I have received some PM's from a few that have been denied recently in both initial and appeal submittals, including myself.

From what I gather you best have something better than 'Self Defense' as a GC which Sheriff Dean has previously approved freely.

Personally, I'm very dissapointed in the Sheriff.

Just my 2-cents.

-178S

Quote:

Originally Posted by dieselpower

Please keep this in mind....

Please keep this in mind....

Quote:
Dean bases his decisions partly on a 1977 state attorney general's opinion that to obtain a permit, the applicant must have a need for self-defense that exceeds that of the average citizen, Aranda said. Applicants also must live in the county and have no felony convictions or history of violence or mental health problems, he said.

---------------------------

Hello Houston- We have a problem.

Dean DOES NOT base his decisions on the 1977 opinion as was displayed with the recent release of GC statements he did approve.

I've been thinking about going for a CCW after sufficiently practicing with my currently jailed j-frame. But I might be moving out of the state in less than a year. Is it even worth going for the license? It sounds like it will take longer for me to get the license than it would for me to graduate and move out to graduate school.

So my permit expired on Oct 22 of this year. I had put in my application for renewal 8 weeks earlier than that. I was approved for renewal sometime around Oct 17. I got my shooting qualification in on Oct 25. . . It's now 12/14 and nothing. I've called them twice and all they've said is "we're working as fast as we can." Anything else I can do but wait and wait at this point?

I don't understand how this new policy is a step forward for those of us who's good cause is self protection (not above and beyond normal) it seems to clearly say most of the public doesn't have good cause....

__________________"Seems sick and it's hungry, it's tired and it's torn, It looks like it's dyin' and it's hardly been born" Bob Dylan
"It's the end of the world as we know it...and I feel fine." R.E.M.

I don't understand how this new policy is a step forward for those of us who's good cause is self protection (not above and beyond normal) it seems to clearly say most of the public doesn't have good cause....

Also, the good morale character clause is concerning. You may be of morale character enough to purchase a firearm, or even LTC from other states, but you may be held to a higher standard in VC?

I'm just still not getting it. I was under the assumption that the biggest problem with CCW issuing was the "good cause" loophole. I also thought that previously it was basically up to the SD to decide on a case by case basis if you had good cause (nothing was really in writing) and they historically thought most didn't, so that's bad. Now they very specifically seem to be stating that self defense for the average person is not good cause. Isn't that a step in the opposite direction? I hope I'm missing something (probably am). My wife and I have been watching this issue for a few years now anxiously waiting for a possible "shall issue" style system. Is there a obvious progression from this new document to becoming shall issue?

__________________"Seems sick and it's hungry, it's tired and it's torn, It looks like it's dyin' and it's hardly been born" Bob Dylan
"It's the end of the world as we know it...and I feel fine." R.E.M.

Isn't that a step in the opposite direction? I hope I'm missing something.

I don't think you're missing anything. I agree with you. It appears to me that the Sheriff's office new, wordy policy is tighter lockdown on issuance now that their previous favouritism agenda has been exposed. In my opinion it'll be harder for everyday cats to obtain a LTC in Ventura County.

Then again, it was the VCSD that hosted the summit in Camarillo that demonizes those of us that want small government as potential terrorists...so why would I think they would be more flexible now that they've been exposed to issue LTC? Remember when it was all about the Scary Turban People? Not any more, folks. It's been rebranded and is pointed at YOU.

__________________The Answer To 1984 Is 1776
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The free people of the world are at war with an insidious enemy:
a global banking oligarchy determined to shipwreck the economies of the world
and feast on its corpse.

Before, they were using the "good cause" loophole as well as making additional hoops to jump through. Those additional hoops (letters from your neighbors, boss, etc.) were illegal under CA law. This fight is to simply make the Sherrifs follow the rules, IE CA law. The "good cause" loophole as you call it, that is another fight to be fought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by icentropy

I'm just still not getting it. I was under the assumption that the biggest problem with CCW issuing was the "good cause" loophole. I also thought that previously it was basically up to the SD to decide on a case by case basis if you had good cause (nothing was really in writing) and they historically thought most didn't, so that's bad. Now they very specifically seem to be stating that self defense for the average person is not good cause. Isn't that a step in the opposite direction? I hope I'm missing something (probably am). My wife and I have been watching this issue for a few years now anxiously waiting for a possible "shall issue" style system. Is there a obvious progression from this new document to becoming shall issue?

I'm just still not getting it. I was under the assumption that the biggest problem with CCW issuing was the "good cause" loophole.

Before, they were using the "good cause" loophole as well as making additional hoops to jump through. Those additional hoops (letters from your neighbors, boss, etc.) were illegal under CA law. This fight is to simply make the Sherrifs follow the rules, IE CA law. The "good cause" loophole as you call it, that is another fight to be fought.

Quote:

I also thought that previously it was basically up to the SD to decide on a case by case basis if you had good cause (nothing was really in writing)

No, its all in writing and has been for years. They are just ignoring it.

This phrase right here is what I'm most suspicious of : "Persons who are in reasonable fear of their safety due to a set of facts that place them in danger, above that of the average citizen". It violates the 2A as I read it, and also seems to be a way to continue the "good 'ol boys" club mentality of issuing LTC to the elite. Now that it's in writing, it could very well be a focal point for further litigation.

This phrase right here is what I'm most suspicious of : "Persons who are in reasonable fear of their safety due to a set of facts that place them in danger, above that of the average citizen". It violates the 2A as I read it, and also seems to be a way to continue the "good 'ol boys" club mentality of issuing LTC to the elite. Now that it's in writing, it could very well be a focal point for further litigation.

I agree. It seems that Ventura County actually tightened the screws. Am I wrong about this?

__________________The Answer To 1984 Is 1776
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The free people of the world are at war with an insidious enemy:
a global banking oligarchy determined to shipwreck the economies of the world
and feast on its corpse.

Hearing the negative experiences had me pretty 'freaked out.' But I have a few friends with CCW from Ventura that have all recently received renewals or new permits (like mine), and they were quick to encourage me. (None of us are 'elite' or well connected, etc.--that is for sure!)

I don't mean to diminish the reported experience of others. Just thought I'd share my recent experience too for those thinking of applying, etc.

The licensing folks at Ventura were friendly and professional --- Not adversarial at all. The detective was pleasant at the interview.

I submitted a classic GCS that was legit with respect to the stated policy and easily verified (they did verify), and the whole process took about 5 months beginning to end. I would recommend that any GCS you submit is in compliance with the stated requirements. Judging by comments from friends with long-standing CCW issuance in Ventura, the requirements haven't changed in this regard, but are as posted above, whereas I don't think they were posted previously (?).
Also, I was able to truthfully answer the drug, arrest/conviction and mental-health questions, do not have a bunch of traffic tickets and am sure my DOJ/FBI reports were pretty dull.

My permit was processed during the on-going transition --- I could tell the licensing folks are adapting to new procedures, and because they are friendly, I felt free to ask specifics about procedures and how they're changing. It seems clear to me the changes are geared toward speeding up the process.

Naturally, I'd prefer a state-wide "shall-issue" policy, but all-in-all, a good experience for me anyway. Hope others have the same.

We'll see when enough data presents to objectively make a comparison. It will be mid-2012 at least before we have that dataset.

-Brandon

So we aren't at the ** TIME TO APPLY ** stage, then. Well, nevertheless, you guys did a hell of a job twisting their arm. Hopefully soon they'll cry "uncle!"

__________________The Answer To 1984 Is 1776
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The free people of the world are at war with an insidious enemy:
a global banking oligarchy determined to shipwreck the economies of the world
and feast on its corpse.

So we aren't at the ** TIME TO APPLY ** stage, then. Well, nevertheless, you guys did a hell of a job twisting their arm. Hopefully soon they'll cry "uncle!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker

Actually, we are, but differently. Without applicants making their way through the new process, we don't get data that offers indications of how the policy is being applied.

-Brandon

I don't think the process was the overarching problem as much as the inconsistencies pertaining to who did, and did not, get approved using very similar if not identical GC's. Of course taking into consideration the morale character requirements were met (no felonies, domestics, etc) by both classes. The process was broken relative to the departments response time dictated by law, however, the ultimate conclusions reached were the of the biggest concern. What will be interesting to see now is the written reason stating why an applicant failed to meet the Departments 'issuing criteria'.

At the least the process and timeline reaching inconsistent approvals is streamlined. But as noted by others, I like the pressure CGF is putting on VC and letting them know the process is being monitored. That's why I am a VC sponsor.

The overarching problem, if you want to call it that (and I think the description is apt), is the unconstitutional prior restraint on a fundamental right imposed by the statute's good moral character and good cause requirements (and the licensing authorities' subjective application of same). These we're dealing with via the federal 2A/14A challenge in Richards v. Prieto.

The conclusions are impossible to judge if they never come. With the new process and policy, we can at least monitor the outcomes in a statutorily-compliant timeframe. Not only us, but the Ventura County Star seems like it's taken a bit of an interest in this matter... (Sunshine.)

More to your point about the department's reasons for denying a license after Jan. 1, note that the PC will now require that "[]if the licensing authority determines that good cause does not exist, the notice shall inform the applicant that the request for a license has been denied and shall state the reason from the department's published policy, described in Section 26160, as to why the determination was made."

-Brandon

Quote:

Originally Posted by One78Shovel

I don't think the process was the overarching problem as much as the inconsistencies pertaining to who did, and did not, get approved using very similar if not identical GC's. Of course taking into consideration the morale character requirements were met (no felonies, domestics, etc) by both classes. The process was broken relative to the departments response time dictated by law, however, the ultimate conclusions reached were the of the biggest concern. What will be interesting to see now is the written reason stating why an applicant failed to meet the Departments 'issuing criteria'.

At the least the process and timeline reaching inconsistent approvals is streamlined. But as noted by others, I like the pressure CGF is putting on VC and letting them know the process is being monitored. That's why I am a VC sponsor.

-178S

__________________Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

should we be optimistic about "non-prohibited persons of good moral character" receiving their LTC? Do we have a good feeling about a positive change in their actual issuing procedures? Or is this another small step in the right direction.

__________________
"A superior Operator is best defined as someone who uses his superior judgement to keep himself out of situations that would require a display of his superior skills."